JUDGMENT Sunanda Bhandare, J.
(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Judgment of the District Judge, Delhi, dated 22/03/1973 in House Tax Appeal No. 142/73, whereby the annualrateable value for the assessment years 1969-70 in respect of property bearing Municipal No. 16/10677-4/42 W.E.A. Karolbagh, New Delhi was enhanced and was fixed at Rs. 8300.00. The property in question was assessed at therateable value of Rs. 3830.00 for the year 1961 to 1969. However, for the assessment years 1969-70, the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi enhanced the rateable value of the property to Rs. 8300.00 on the ground that the contractual rent for the premises in question was Rs. 300.00 per month. c challenged the assessment before the District Judge by way of an appeal under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 and theDistrict Judge after hearing the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the contractual rent of the property was not Rs. 300.00but was Rs. 225.00 per month and on that basis reduced the rateable value to Rs. 8246.00. The general attorney of the petitioner has challenged the assessment on the ground that fixation of annual letting value on the basis of contractual rent is against the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh & Others v. MunicipalCorporation of Delhi & Others, 1985(1)SCC 165. It was submitted that it was obligatory for the respondent to fix the annual rateable value on the c standard rent. The general attorney who appeared for the petitioner further submitted that after 1972 again the respondent has reduced the annual rateable value to Rs. 4350.00 and there was no basis for fixing the rateable value atRs. 8246.00 for the period in question.
(2) There is substantial force in the contention made on behalf of the petitioner. It does appear that rateable value for the period in question has been enhanced on the basis of contractual rent that was being received by the petitioner and not by determining the standard rent. This is clearly against the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh's case (supra).It is also not clear how the rateable value for the subsequent period was again reduced to Rs. 4350.00Moreover, in my opinion, in any event the rateable value fixed on contractual rent for the assessment year in question i.e. for the year1969-70 cannot be sustained.
(3) The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed on that groundalone. The order dated 22/03/1973 of the District Judge, Delhi inH.T.A. 142/73 read with order of the respondent dated 27/12/1969is set aside. The Assistant Assessor & Collector of respondent is directed to reassess the rateable value following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr.Balbir Singh's case (supra) after giving due notice to the petitioner in thatregard. There will be no order as to costs.